Corker discusses national debt, immigration with Tennessean

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, who is barnstorming the state this week, sat down with the editorial board of The Tennessean to explain his new campaign to address the national debt. (To see the slide show, click here.) Corker also took questions on mosque construction, rewriting the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship and whether he is weighing a run for president in 2012.

A liveblog account of the 52-minute discussion follows:

9:55 a.m. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker will be in this morning to talk to The Tennessean editorial board about the national debt. Presentation should start around 10 a.m.

10:08 a.m. Corker has arrived. Starting slide presentation.

10:10 a.m. “What I’m trying to do is trying to get us to talk differently of where we are.” Showing slide that debt is currently 62 percent of national GDP. Projected to rise to 146 percent by 2030.

10:11 a.m. Greece was at 120 percent when bailed out by European Union. “Really not fair to compare us to Greece.” There is a lot of corruption. Their economy isn’t as efficient, but in terms of indebtedness, there are some similarities, Corker says.

10:12 a.m. Surplus during the Clinton years suggests Republicans and Democrats can work together. Gap between revenue and spending currently not projected to converge again through 2020.

10:13 a.m. National budget would be like earning $43k per year and spending $74k.

10:16 a.m. Interest payments by federal government will be $916 billion by 2020.

10:19 a.m. 46 percent of our indebtedness held by foreign holders. 10 percent by “China” (not clear whether this includes Chinese investors or just the government). In 1960, 7 percent of national debt held by foreigners. “If your debt has the potential to get out of control, it probably matters who’s loaning you the money.” Greece’s debt held by friends.

10:20 a.m. Spending has historically been 20.3 percent of GDP over the last 50 years. Revenue has been 18.0 percent of GDP. “There are economists on both sides of the aisle who say that you can function like that in perpetuity as long as your economy is growing.”

10:21 a.m. We as a country need to decide on the appropriate level of government spending in proportion to GDP, Corker says.

10:24 a.m. Getting the country back to a balanced budget (18 percent spending/GDP) would require $6.7 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years. Getting back to 20.3 percent would require $4.5 trillion.

10:25 a.m. $670 billion a year ($6.7 trillion/10 years) is more than we spend on defense.

10:26 a.m. “What we’ve got to do is figure out a construct that forces us to cap spending and incentivize growth.” We’re going to deal with legislation by January, back when everybody is focused on serious issues, to put together legislation that proposes a construct to cap spending.

10:29 a.m. Some people in Washington say American people not going to deal with spending until there is a crisis. That’s what happened in Greece. My hope is that they will.

Corker ends presentation and opens to questions from editorial board.

10:30 a.m. Q. Where do you start trying to change the culture in Washington? A. Don’t start with cuts or taxes. Have to start with policy decision on spending in relation to GDP.

10:32 a.m. The next step is where the pain is. Need to put the format in place first. Not going to say what programs should be cut.

10:33 a.m. Q. Will this push problem down to state? A. Obviously, the would be concerned about mandates from Washington. … That would be a concern over time.

10:34 a.m. Q. How much is uptick in revenue impacted by rise in federal spending? A. There are some people, I’m not one of them, who are Keynesian thinkers. … We would create a lag in spending cuts to prevent the kind of downturn feared by Keynesians.

10:35 a.m. Q. Will Congress work with the deficit commission? A. Think the expectation right now that the only substantive things that’s going to be dealt with right now is Social Security. Don’t think they’ll deal with Medicaid, etc.

10:36 a.m. Q. Any lessons from the financial reform debate? A. Actually, what I would take away — Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Judd Gregg on our side — is you couldn’t have a more philosophical divide. But what I took away is that when there’s a crisis, you can sit down and figure something out. Was it perfect? No. But the two sides were able to sit down and hash something out.

10:38 a.m. Q. Have you talked to Lamar Alexander? A. I talked to my colleagues and told them I wanted to shock Tennesseans. Sen. Alexander said he might slip into the back somewhere and listen.

10:39 a.m. Q. How do you avoid loopholes? A. With any piece of legislation like this, you have to have the ability to have exceptions for emergencies that occur. But do you not think that at least having an intelligent conversation … isn’t at least worth having that debate? Isn’t it something the deficit commission ought to have?

10:41 a.m. Q. But is it possible to have an abstract debate like that — the percentage of GDP that goes on spending? A. The fact of the matter is I think everybody realizes this isn’t just an issue … we’ve got a spending problem here. We can’t sustain this as a country. I don’t think that’s abstract. … This is not an academic discussion. We’re not talking about something that’s going to leave Americans untouched.

Does anybody believe that Social Security is going to remain the same as it is in 20 years? Nobody does. Let’s get on with it.

Is not someone in my income level going to pick up a greater portion of it? Let’s get on with it.

10:44 a.m. Q. Tax policy? A. Let’s have a tax policy that grows GDP. I think it’s an interesting debate. Seems like both parties are interested in tax policies that grow GDP. Growth is a good thing as it relates to these issues.

10:45 a.m. Q. Will turnover in seats in November make this debate harder or easier? A. On financial reform, the people I was negotiating with, the realities that they had 59 votes starting out set in.

I think that having the two parties having generally more parity causes them to take each other more seriously. When the two parties have to take each other more seriously, we end up with better legislation. I don’t think the Senate is going to end up controlled by Republicans, but I think Republican senators with 47 or 48 seats can impact legislation in a more positive way.

10:47 a.m. Q. How do you see yourself? A. I see myself as a person who knows we have a lot of issues to deal with. I think one of the things you learn in the Senate is you need to focus on those things where you can be beneficial.

I don’t view myself as a politician at all. I view myself as a person who sees that the country has issues and I want to solve them. I make mistakes but, let’s face it, everybody approaches issues based on where they come from.

I want to have as much impact as I possibly can in a positive way in the Senate while I’m there.

10:49 a.m. Q. What is your position on the (reporter) shield law? A. There’s not a final shield law yet. I understand your concerns and I understand the national security interests. … I want to support a shield law but I want to understand what it says. I’d like to read the final final product. I understand the tug between national security and freedom of the press.

Who wants to be against a free press? At the same time — this WikiLeaks thing.

10:51 a.m. Q. Your thoughts on the building of Islamic centers? A. I have meticulously stayed out of local issues. When I was mayor, I didn’t appreciate it when people at the federal level weighed in on local issues. … It’s a local issue. They will probably resolve it more sensibly without turning any of these issues into a federal issue.

10:52 a.m. A. What is your position on the 14th Amendment? A. First of all, changing the Constitution is a big deal. I don’t think people should move in a willy-nilly fashion toward changing the Constitution. There are also people who think can be addressed legislatively.

I think, at this time that we’re looking at immigration issues, all of these things ought to be looked at. … But let’s do so in a thoughtful manner.

10:53 a.m. Q. The Republican Party is looking for national leaders. Are you going to Iowa or New Hampshire anytime soon? A. I’m not. I wake up in the mornings and I just don’t view myself that way. … Are there discussions about it? Do people comment about it, especially, candidly, in other states? They do. It’s just not something — I really am focused on running for the Senate this next time. I know I’ve had an impact there in three and a half years.

That could change, OK. But I really just don’t — I don’t want wake up in the mornings wanting to be something else.

10:58 a.m. Q. You said you wanted to shock Tennesseans. If we aren’t shocked, what does it say about us and then what do you do? A. If you look at the big issue that our country has before us, it’s this issue. This issue’s not going away. If people are not becoming concerned about it, they will be because this issue is not going away.

The fact is, in fairness to the current administration, I’m going to move away from our non-partisan presentation, I do think these guys are spending money in ways they shouldn’t … but in fairness, I think they’ve exacerbated the problem but about that much. (Holds fingers closely together.)

This is a problem that’s been a long, long time coming. It is going to cause, at some point, we will deal with this issue. Are we going to deal with it as thoughtful responsive citizens or are we going to deal with it as a crisis?

Politicians tell people what they want to hear and citizens take things that they know can’t go on. … They know that intuitively that we can’t continue to borrow money like we’ve been borrowing money. Hopefully Americans will come to deal with this soon.

The other way to deal with it, sort of the coward’s way out, is to have huge inflation. Inflation causes GDP to grow really quickly. 15 percent inflation, in five years you can double GDP. Hopefully that’s not a route we’ll take.